Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PILLA SITARAM PATRUDU & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 731 1996 SCALE (4)192
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The 5th respondent, K.R. Ramanandan, was selected by
direct recruitment in the year 1977 for selection as
Assistant Executive Engineer. All the direct recruits except
the respondent were appointed in the year 1978. It was
admitted that when he had filed O.P. No.7226/85 in the CAT,
Ernakulam Bench, by order dated 31.1.1990 it was held that
his appointment was delayed due to laches on the part of the
Railway Administration. After his appointment in the year
1981, within two years he passed his test. When his case was
not considered for promotion as Executive Engineer, he filed
the O.A. The Tribunal without deciding the inter se
seniority in the cadre of Asstt. Executive Engineers had
directed the Railway Administration to consider his case for
promotion as Executive Engineer for the years 1984, 1985 and
1986 and if found fit for promotion in any of the posts, to
give him promotion for that year and to fix seniority among
Executive Engineers accordingly. Pursuant thereto, the
respondent was considered and promoted as Executive
Engineer. After the above order came to be made, the Railway
Administration did not carry the matter in appeal to this
Court. Some of the persons seemingly aggrieved against the
direction admittedly filed a review petition which was also
dismissed and that order became final. The petitioners
thereafter challenged the self same order by filing separate
O.A. and in the impugned order of the Tribunal dated October
19, 1995 the Tribunal has confirmed it earlier order. Thus
this Special Leave Petition.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that since the inter-re seniority as Asstt.
Engineers was left open in the order, the directions given
by the Tribunal to consider the case as Executive Engineer
and determine his seniority on the basis of the promotion,
is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention.
Once he is found to be eligible according to the rules, then
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
his seniority is required to be determined as per the
procedure prescribed in the rules in vogue. It is further
contended that the fifth respondent was not qualified since
he had not completed 8 years of required service. The
Tribunal has recorded a finding that two years period is
relaxable in the case of the reserved candidates. The inter
se seniority as Asstt. Executive Engineer is required to be
determined; he joined service in 1981 and, therefore, he did
not have the requisite service. We find no force in the
contention. Since he was selected by direct recruitment, he
is entitled to be appointed according to rule. His
appointment was delayed for no fault of him and he came to
be appointed in 1981, he is, therefore, entitled to the
ranking given in the select list and appointment made
accordingly. Under these circumstances, we do not find any
illegality in the order.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.